The High Court · 2025

Order

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed se eking the following relief: "...to bsue a wit order or direction more particularlg one in the nature of Wit of Mandamus or ang other appropriate writ declaring the impugned. Article of Charqes uide Memo NO.NITW BoG/ Disc./ ID- 471/2023/3387, dated 24.1.2023 NIT Warangal issued bg tlrc 2"d respondent for hold.ing inquiry against the Petitioner &Consequent qppotntterlt of Inquiing Authaitg in Lr.No.IO/ CSPR/ 02, dt. l"t October, 2024 a-s whollg illegal, arbitrary and uiolatiue of Artictes 14, 16 & 21 of the Colstitution of India apart from being uiolatiue of principles of natural justice and consequentlg setctside the 2"d respondent's Antcle of Charges uide Memo NO.NITW BoG/Disc./ ID- 471/2023/3387, d.ated 24.1.2023 NIT Warangal& Consequetlt appointnent of Inqtiring Authoitg in Lr. N,.IO/ CSPR/ 01, dt. 1't October, 2024 and pass..."

2. 'l'he brief facts of thc case are as follows:

2.1 The petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering in the Regional Engineering College at Warangal (re- structured as National Institute of Technolory (NIT) Warangal in 2OO2l on 19.03. 1990, alrd was elevated as Associate Professor on 04.O1.2OO3 and Professor oo 26.10.2006. While working as such, in pursuance of the Notihcation issued by the NIT, Andhra Pradesh, the petitioner was appointed as Director on a contractual basis for a period of five years vide MHRD letter dated 12.03.2018. Accepting the said offer letter, the .-! 2 PK, J w.r'.No.29066 of 2024 petitioner requested to relieve him from NIT, Waranga,l, on 14.03.201g, and subsequently, he has given an undertaking/afhdavit of joining as Director, NIT, A.P., on deputation basis, on f 9.03.20 1g.

2.2. While the matter stood thus, the ACB officiats registered two cases against thc petitioner vide FIR.No. RCO36 2O22AOO| l arrd RCo362o22Ao012, both dated 16.o2.2o22, for rhe offences punishable under Sections 4o9, 42o and r2o(B) of the Indian penal code and r3(2) read with 13(1)(a) of the prevention of Corruption Act, 198g, and Sections 7,7A and 8 of the prevention of Corruption Act, l9gg, respectively. Consequently, the petitioner was placed under suspension by the borrowing Institution i.e., NIT, A.p. vide order dated 30.03.2022. Thereafter, a One-Man Committee was constituted by the Visitor, which submitted its report on 02.Og.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner,s suspension was revoked on 22.09 -2022, and on 23.Og.2022, his services as Director of NIT, A.p., were terminated by the Visitor, directing the petitioner to report at this parent Institution.

2.3 Assailing the said order dated 25.Og.2O22, the petitioner Irled w.P.No.31659 of 2022 before the High court of Andhra pradesh at Amaravati, wherein, the High Court has granted interim suspension of suspension order vide order dated Ia.lO.2O22 in I.A.No.1 of 2022 therein. Subsequently, on 23.1 1.2022, the High Court has issued a I 3 PK, J W.P.No.29O66 of 2024 clarification to the interim order dated 18.10.2022, in I.A.No.2 of 2022, to the extent that the respondents would be at liberty to initiate any disciplinary proceedings without giving effect to the impugned order therein. As such, in supersession of the order dated 23.09.2022, Lhe Visitor issued a revised termination order dated 06.12.2022, as per Clause-l3 of the Contract of Service. Challenging the same, the petitioner hled yet another writ petition vide W.P.No.39669 of 2022, and the High Court ol Andhra Pradesh disposed of both the writ petitions vide common order dated Oa.12.2022, directing the respondents to treat the services of the petitioner from 23.09.2022 to 06.12.2022 as va-lid with a-ll consequential benefits.

2.4 Thereafter, on 12.12.2022, the petitioner was relieved from the services at NIT, A.P., with instructions to report at his parent Institution i.e., NIT, Warangal, and in compliance of the same, on

14.12.2022, the petitioner reported to duty at NIT, Warangal. While so, the petitioner has been placed under suspension vide order dated

27.O3.2O23, in view of the incidents that occurred during the petitioner's tenure as Director at NIT, A.P. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed W.P.No.9464 of 2023 before this Court and this Court granted interim direction as prayed for vide order dated 06.04.2023, suspending the op6ration of the suspension order dated 27.03.2023. 4 PK, J w.P.No.29066 of 2024 E* Subsequently, on 24.11.2023, respondent No.2 herein issued the impugned charge memo vide No.NITW/BoG/Disc. /ID -47 1 / 2023 / 3387, leveling nine articles of charge against the petitioner, and later, appointed respondent No.3 as the enquiry officer vide letter No.IO/CSPR/O1 dated Ol.lO.2024, to enquire into the charges leveled against the petitioner. Challenging the charge memo dated 24.11.2023 and the order of appointment of enquiry officer dated Ol.lO.2O24, the present writ petition is filed.

3. Heard Sri P. Suresh Reddy, learned Senior Counsel. representing Sri M.P. Kashyap, learned counsel for the petitioner arrd Sri B. Narasimha Sharma, Iearned Additional Solicitor General of India, on behalf of respondent Nos.l and 2.

4.1. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that while the petitioner was working as a Professor in NIT, Waralgal, (respondent No.2 Institution), the Director, who lacks jurisdiction as in- charge Chairperson of the Board of Governors, had placed the petitioner under suspension vide order No.NITW /Vig./D.a7l/2023/5077 d,ated

27.03.2023 by exercising the powers conferred under Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, r/w. Statute 26 of the First Statute of NITs, basing on the Board of Governors' resolution dated 24.02.2O23, by referring to two criminal i I 5 PK, J W.P.No.29066 of 2024 cases registered against the petitioner by the Central Bureau of Investigation, Andhra Pradesh in the year 2018. It was further submitted that only after seven months of placing the petitioner under suspension, respondent No.2 issued the- impugned Articles of Charge vide Memo.No.NITW/BOG/ DISC. I lD I 47 1 I 2023 I 3387 dated

24.11.2023, alleging that the Board of Governors resolved to hold an enquiry against the petitioner under Rule 2O of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

4.2. It was further submitted that upon receiving the impugned Articles of Charge dated 24. I | .2023, the petitioner submitted a representation to respondent No.2 on O1.12.2023, requesting to supply the relevant information/documents and further sought for extension of time for submission of his defense statement. However, instead of providing the requisite documents, respondent No.2, in utter violation of principles of natural justice, issued a Memo dated 06.12.2O23, directing the petitioner submit his explanation by 11.12.2023, without fail, specifically requiring an admission or denial of each charge. In response to the same, the petitioner once again submitted a detailed representation to respondent No.2 on 11.12.2023, reiterating his request to provide the necessary documents for submission of a comprehensive and truthiul reply to each charge, and categorically denying all the aliegations. However, without considering the said 6 PK, J W.P No.29O66 of 2O24 I representation, respondent No.2 has issued the impug:ned proceedings vide Lr.No.IOICSPR/01 dated 01.1O.2024, appointing respondent No.3 as the enquiry ofltcer, to conduct an enquiry against the petitioner. It was further submitted that the entire process of initiation and continuation of departmental proceedings was undertaken by the Board of Governors of NIT, Warangal, and the current Director, who is also functioning as in-charge Chairperson of the Board of Governors, himself initiated action and served the Article of Charge against the petitioner by appointing a on(:-man Committee, thereby, resulting in thc absence of an independent decision.

4.3. It was further submitted that allegations against the petitioner pertain to his services at NIT, A.P., while he worked as the Director of the said Institution. Therefore, it was contended that any proceedings arising out of the incidents that occurred during his services at the said period could only be initiated by the competent authority of that Institution, i.e., NIT, A. P., that too, with the prior approval of the Visitor. Further, the present Director of NIT, Warangal, has no jurisdiction or authority to constitute an enquiry committee in respect of the petitioner's services as Director of NIT, A.P., even though the petitioner is a permanent employee of NIT, Warangal. lt was further submitted that respondent No.2 is acting as in-charge Chairperson of I r 1 PK, J W.P.No.29066 of 2024 the Board of Governors of NIT, Warangal, without any valid order, and also not as per the Statutes and NIT-SER Act.

4.4. It was further submitted that respondent No.2 issued the impugned Articles of Charge vide Memo dated 24.1I.2023, and appointed an enquiry officer vide order dated O1.7O.2024, without the consent/approval of the Visitor, which, in itself, is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and against the principles of natural justice. Further, the criminal cases registered against the petitioner by the CBI, A.P., are sub judice before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, while the matter is pending before the said Court, there cannot be any similar set of allegations to be enquired into by respondent No.2, who has no authority of jurisdiction to do so. Therefore, learned Senior Counsel lor the petitioner prayed this Court to allow the present writ petition by setting aside the impugned Articles of Charge vide Memo dated

24.11.2023 and the order of appointment of the enquiry officer dated ot.Lo.2024.

4.5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner relied on the following judgments: 8 ( PK, J W.P.No.29O66 of 2024 I 1l In. TV P.V. Srinivasa Srrctry dnd Ors. u. Comptroller q.nd. Auditor General q.nd Ors.t G. Krishnalrr Raju u. Smt. N.A, Pantathiz ProJ. R.G. Chouskeg u. Unlort oJ Ind.la and. Ors.s B.N, Dhotrad u. Board of Directors-cum-Appellate Authoritg, Karnatakq. Land Artng Cot1l,oro'tiorl. Limiteda.

5. l. Per <:ontra, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India, appearing on bchalf of the respondents, submitted that respondent No.2, being the competent appointing and disciplinary authority as per Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Apped) Rules, 1965, has issued the impugned Articles of Charge dated

24.11.2023, proposing to enquire into the charges leveled against the petitioner. Since, the petitioner had denied the said charges, respondent No.3 was appointed as the enquiry oilicer vide proceedings dated O1.7O.2024, to enquiry into the charges leveled against the petitioner, as per the procedure laid down under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules. Further, as per Rule 9 of the Nationa-l Institutes of Technolog,, Science trducation and Research Act, 2OO7, (for short, ,the NIT-SER Act), the President of India shall be the Visitor of every NIT. As per RuIe 17(1), the Director of an Institute shall be appointed by the Visitor. As per r (1993) I SCC 419 2 1991 (2],ALT 127 (S.B.) 3 Order dated 17.08.2023 in W.p.No.8994 of 20lZ (High Court of Madhya pradesh) a 2006 Lawsuit (Kar) 479 7 t, 9 PK, J W.P.No.29066 of 2024 Rule 24, all appointments of staff of every NIT, except that of the Director, shall be made by the Board of Governors in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Statutes'

5.2. It was further submitted that based on the recommendations of a Selection Committee and the approval of the Visitor, the petitioner was offered the post of Director' NIT' A'P'' for a period of five years purely on tenure basis vide letter of appointment dated 12.03.2018, and the petitioner had accepted the said offer vide letter dated 14.03.2018, requesting to depute him to NIT' A'P ' for his joining. The petitioner had also submitted an undertaking dated lg.o3.2ol8.HewasrelievedfromNlT,Warangal,videorderdated 21.03.2018, and assumed the charge of the post of Director at NIT' A'P'' or 22.o3.2ols.ttwasfurthersubmittedthatwhilethepetitionerwas working as the Director of NIT, A'P', there were a-llegations of linancial corruption against him, and two criminal cases were registered against him by the oltrcials of CBI-ACB Vishakapatnam' vide FIR Nos.RCO362O2 2AOOL2 and RCO362O22A001L' both dated 16'02'2022' Therefore, as per Rules 10(1) and 2O of the CCS (CCA) Rules' the petitioner was placed under suspension by the borrowing authority' i'e ' NIT,A.P.,videorderdaled29.03.2022,inttieJiryforaperiodof9odays, and the said susfension was later extended from 27 '06 '2022 for 10 r' PK, J W.P..No.29O66 oJ 2024 I another 90 days. Subsequently, the petitioner,s suspension was revoked on 22.09.2022, and consequent upon the approval of the Visitor, an order of termination was issued to the petitioner on 23.09.2022, directing him to join at his parent Institution, i.e., NIT, Warangal, and to initiate regular departmental action against the petitioner as per the ccs (ccA) Rules, as it was not practicable for NIT, A.P., to initiate any disciprinary proceedings against its own Director, who is the sitting head of the Institution, as the same causes irreparable damage to the prestige of the Institution and affects its academic activities.

5.3. It was further submitted that the petil.ioner filed W.P.No.31659 of 2022 before the High Court of Andhr.a pradesh, challenging the trrrmination order dated 23.09.2022, and the Court granted interim stay of the termination order on lg.lO.2O22. Thereafter, on 23.1I.2022, the Court clarified that the respondents were at liberty to initiate any proceedings against the petitioner without giving effect to the said termination order. Accordingly, in supersession of the earlier termination order dated, 23.Og.2O22, a termination simplicitor order dated 06.12.2022 was issued. As such, the contention of the petitioner that the termination order dated 06.12.2022, was issued with a mala fide intention to see that the petitioner is sent to his parent I I v' I 11 PK, J W.P.No.29066 of 2024 Institution to initiate departmentar proceedings against the petitioner is preposterous, false and baseless, as his contract was terminated in terms of Clause 13 of the contract of service.

5.4. It was further submitted that the petitioner was repatriated to NIT, waranga-I, and is continuing in the cadre of professor. As such, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the petitioner,s case, and considering the misconduct borne on record, it was resolved by the competent authority, i.e., the Board of Governors, in its speciar meeting held on 27.O3.2023, to place the petitioner under suspension, and the Board has also resolved to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner. Accordingly, the petilioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 27.03.2023. However, challenging the said order, the petitioner filed W.p.No.9464 ol 2023 before this Court, and this Court, vide order dated 06.O4.2 O23, in I.A.No. 1 ot 2023 therein, granted interim suspension of the suspension order. A detailed counter affidavit and vacate stay petition has been filed in the aforementioned writ petition, and the same is still pending. 5'5 It was further submitted that the petitioner was issued with the impugned charge Memo dated 24.rr.2023, framing nine Articles of Charge with detailed . statements of imputation of misconduct. In response, the petitioner sent a ietter dated 01.12.2023, seeking 12 PK, J w.P.No 29066 of 2024 additional documents to submit his explanation, and he was later informed, vide letter dated 06.12.2023, that his admission or denial of charges should bt' based on the documents listed in Annexure-Il to the Charge Memo, and that he will have an opportunity of seeking the supply of additional documents for his defense, at the appropriate point of time. Therefort', the contention of the petitioner that the respondents did not heed to his request of furnishing additional documents is misleading and incorrect. Subsequently, the petitioner sent a letter dated I 1.12.2023. categorically denying all the charges.

5.6. It was further submitted that a termination simplicitor order dated, 06.12.2022 was issued in supersession of the earlier termination order dated 23.09.2022, as per the terms of the contract of service. However, neither the order of suspension dated 27.03.2023 nor the impugned Charge Memo dated 27.11.2023 are based on the termination order dated 23.09.2022, and that the petitioner had not been exonerated of the alleged misconduct by any of the orders of the High Court of Andhra Prtrdesh. It was further submitted that the disciplinary proceedings were instituted against the petitioner as per Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, by the Board of Governors, NIT, Warangal, and respondent No.2 herein, who is the competent appointing-cum- disciplinary authority, Therefore, the contentions of the petitioner that v t 13 PK, J W.P.No.29066 of 2024 the present Director and in-charge Chairperson of Board of Governors has unilaterally initiated the enquiry and appointed a One-Man Committee are false and baseless.

5.7. It was further submitted that the Board of Governors, in its 59th meeting held on 24.02.2023, has unanimously resolved to initiate regular departmental action against the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner was issued with the impugned Articles of Charge dated

24.11.2023. Further, in its 66ft meeting on 18.06.2024, the Board of Governors has resolved to appoint respondent No.3 as the enquiry offtcer. As such, he was appointed as the enquiry ofhcer vide proceedings dated O6.O8.2024, and the same was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 01.10.2024, dttly calling him to attend the enquiry on 22.IO.2O24. It was further submitted that the contention of the petitioner that since he was relieved from NIT, A.P., and repatriated to NIT, Warangal, no further action is to be taken on his work at NIT, A.P., by the Director, Warangal, is also false and misleading, as the disciplinary authority of the lending authority only has the right to initiate disciplinary action against its employee as per Rule 20 of the CCS (CCA) Rules. Thus, there is no illegality in issuing the impugned Articles of Charge and the impugned letter, intimating the petitioner of the scheduled enquiry proceedings. It was further submitted that the 1,4 5, PK, J W.P.No.29066 of 2024 very purpose of the charge memo is to enquiry into the alleged misconduct. As such, the petitioner has no reason to challenge the same as none of his rights are infringed. Therefore, it was prayed to dismiss the present writ petition. In support, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India relief on the following decisions: t. lt. tta. ta. Union oJ India and. another u. Kunisettg Satganaraganas Shiu Parshad Pand.eg u. C.B,I.6 B.L. Satgarthi u. State oJ Madhga pradesh and dnotherl K, Kanagasabapathg u. Citg Supplg Oflicer, Ciuil Supplied. Department and. Ors,8 1) N,D. Tyagi t,. Power Finance Corporation Ltd, and. Ors.s

6. This Court has taken note of the riva_l submission made by the learned counsel lor the respective parties and perused the records.

7. A perusal of the record discloses that during his tenure as the Director of NIT, A.p., he was placed under suspension on 3O.O3.2O22, in view of registral ion of two criminal cases registered by the CBI_ACB, Vishakapatnam, against the petitioner, vide FIR Nos.RC0362O2 2AOO12 and RCO362022AOOL 1, both d,ated, t6.O2.2O22, by invoking the powers s (2006) 12 SCC 2u 6 AIR 2OO3 SUPREME COURT 1974 7 2015 (1) MP LJ 15.1 8 1977 LawSuit (Madl 2gZ e 2022 Lawsuit (Detl 1956 I I 7v t 15 PK, J W.P.No.29066 of 2024 conferred under Section 9(2) of the NIT-SER Act. Subsequenfly, a one- man committee was constituted by the Visitor to enquire into the allegations, which submitted its report or O2.O8.2O22. Thereafter, the petitioner's suspension was revoked, and on 23.Og.2022, his services as Director of NIT, A.P., were terminated by the Visitor. Subsequently, in supersession of the order dated 23.09.2022, the Visitor issued a revised termination order dated 06.12.2022, as per Clause-13 of the Contract of Service, terminating the services of the petitioner. On 12.12.2022, tl:.e petitioner was relieved from the services at NIT, A.P., with instructions to report at his parent Institution i.e., NIT, Warangal, and in compliance of the same, on 14 .I2.2O22, the petitioner reported to duty as NIT, Warangal. The petitioner was placed under suspension by NIT, Warangal, on 27.03.2023, for the very same incidents that occurred during his tenure as Director, NIT, A.P. This Court, vide order dated

06.04.2023 in W.P.No.9464 of 2023, granted interim suspension of the said suspension order.

8. Thereafter, on 24.11.2023, respondent No.2 issued the impugned Articles of Charge, and on Ol.lO.2O24, issued the impugned proceedings of appointment of respondent No.3 as enquiry ollicer to enquire into the charges leveled against the petitioner. 16 r., PK, J W.P.No.29066 of 2024 9 The main points that arise for consideration of this Court are as follows:

11. Whether thc lending authority (NIT, Warangai) or the borrowing authoritl (NIT, A.p.) is competent to initiate disciplinary action against the employee for the incident occurred during his deputati()n at the borrowing place? Whether respondent No.2, his capacity as Director and in_ charge Chairperson of Board of Governors of NIT, Warangal, has jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner by issuing the impugned proceedings?

10. For better appreciation of the case on hand, it is pertinent to refer to Statutes 24(t\ and 26 of the First Statute of Statutes of NITs, which clearly specify the applicability of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, to the employees of the NITs. To address the first issue, it is pertinent to refer to Rure 2o of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, which deals with initiation of disciplinary action against a government servant on deprrtation or foreign Service. The said Rule is extracted hereunder. s2O. Provlsions regardiag officers tcEt to State GoveEEents, (1) Where the services of a eqyslnmsnt servant are lent by one department to another department or to a State Government or an I F, ) -I 77 PK, J W.P.No-29066 of 2024 authority subordinate thereto or to a local or other authority (hereinafter in this rule referred to as " ttre borrowing authority"), the borrowing authority shall have the powers of the appointing authority for the purpose of placing such Government servant under suspension and of the disciptinary authority for the purpose of conducting a disciplinary proceeding against him: Provided that the borrowing authority shall forthwith inform the authority which lent the services of the Government servant (hereinafter in this rule referred to as "ttre lending autlority") of the circumstarces leading to the order of suspension of such Government seryant or the commencement of the disciplinary proceeding, as the case may be. (2) In the light of the findings in the disciplinary proceeding conducted against the Government servant- (i) if the borrowing authority is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses {i) to (iv) of rule 11 should be imposed on the Covernment servant, it may, after consultation with the lending authority, make such orders on the case as it deems necessary: Provided that in the event of a difference of opinion between the borrowing authority and the lending authority, the services of the Government servant shall be replaced at the disposal of the lending authority; (ii) if the borrowing authority is of the opinion tiat any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of rule 11 should be imposed on the Government servant, it shall replace his services at the disposal of the lending authority and transmit to it the proceedings of t}Ie inquiry and thereupon the lending authority may, if it is the disciplinary authority, pass such order thereon as it may deem necessary, or, if it is not the disciplinary authority, submit the case to the disciplinary authority which shall pass such orders on the case as it may deem necessary : Providcd that before passing a;ry such order the disciplinary authority shall comply with the provisions of sub-rules (3) and ( ) of rule 15.' EXPLANATION - The disciplinary authority may make an order under this clause on the record of the inquiry transmitted to it by the borrowing authority or after holding such further inquiry as it may deem necessary, as far as may be, in accordance with rule 14. 18 ( PK, J W.P.No.29O66 of 2024

11. From the aforesaid Rule, it is quite clear that while the borrowing authority may initiate proceedings and impose minor penalties under clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule 11, major penalties under clauses (v) to (ix) can only be imposed by the lending authority. It is also clear that once the deputation ends and the employee is repatriated to his the parent institution, the lending authority holds the absolute iurisdiction to initiate departmental action against the delinquent. 12' It is relevant to refer to the decision of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, in B.L. SatganAht (supra), wherein, the Division Bench elaborately interpreted Rule 20 of the Madhya pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1966, which is per se ara_logous to the Rule 20 of th,e CCS (CCA) Rules. The relevant portion of the said decision is extracted hereundcr: - "12..Rule 1)0 of Madhya pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1966 as applicable to the State of Madhya pradesh and reproduced hereinabore gives por,l'er to the borrowing department to take disciplinary action against a Governmeni senant who is on deputation a[d the powers to the appointing authority and the gisc?Ur]a{,, au thority are conferred on the bo"rrowing department. The Rule contemplates that the borrow.ing department "shaii harre the powers of the Appointing Authority for the purpose of placing the government servant under suspension and for taking aisciptinary action agarnst him but the proviso contemplates thlt the action talen has to be forthv.ith communicated to tire parent Department. When power is given to any authority to suspend a Go'ue..rment servant or iniliate disciplinary action against him an assumption has to. be draivl that the power can be exercised so long as the relationship of master and servartt, employer and employee" subsists 1; !r-e gontralt of employment is in existence. Once t'he relationship ol master irncl servant or employer and employee or the contract of service itsclf comes to an end, the question would b. as to ho* I I u 19 PK, J W.P.No.29066 of 2024 "lnptoyie When an disciplinary action or power to suspend can be exercised by an i.iay i,rith *honr tj-re contract of employnent o-f the. employee .".""i"14 is no more in existence' Rute 20 therefore' has to be "",t i"t*p."i"a by holding that the power conferred u;rder Rule 20 to the Uo..o*i.tg de-p.rttnet i o. authority to suspend a Government servant ;;^;;J3 a iisciplinary action against him car be exe-rcised only if tir"-."i"ii"""t ip oi -."i". and servant or the contract of employment U"t*".r, tt " borrowing dcpartment and the deputationist employee who is a government servant and holds "rt "i"a". i" a Goue.nment dlpartment is ient on deputation to Foreign "li-l a corporatiln, then during the period of deputation a ;;;;;a;. a"-.ioo..." contract ;f service is brought into force. between the ;:;;"il; d;;;;;.", and the emplovee ioncerned and so.long as its "of employment subsists the borrowing department can i"rri"- tfr" p.oui"io.t of Rule 20 but once the emplogee 7s "."i*.t l"i"ia"iia Lack to the lorelgn dePartment then the contract oJ temporaitv ireatZd duans the perTod ol .iii"iiit iiiitZtt"" ceasis and- { thaLt be the posltlon' then the departrnent d.oZs not have ang o.u.t|l.orltg to take b;;;i;g the etrytlogee concerned' Apart from the above a ii"t"it ,i Rule 2o(2) and the proviso to Rulc 2o(2)li) and (iii) also t]l "".r""1 ifr. p""i,irn.'n[,.. the departmental proceeding ':itial:1 I*'n* the Borrowing DePartment is completed and the ltnding ol enqury ls "tne iigtrt of the finding if the Borrowing Department .*JJ"a, in *rrti" ,t'i-po* ariy of the penalties specified in clause (i) to (iv) of -ro, it!" "ft"i consultition with the lending department the ii"f. """i"frt""", can be imposed' However, the proviso to Rule 2O(2)(i) ,f ttl"r"'l" anv difference of opinion tretween t]te ffii:;i;';* ;;-r;;;g Department ana tenaing dcpartment *rlt !he. service oi th€ lending rras to be replaced at ihe disposal of t" J."rr,.,i"r,"t. This clearly shows that action undcr these Rules cart be is on deputation not othe.wise as the ;ff;;;;;; to nure zo1z111 speals about -rePlacement ;;;il;; to the lending atp"rt*t"t Sim.ilarly- in Rule 2o(2)(i) ,#;;;iry." l"O p."I,i"",t"teto also it is" cleirlv orovided that if the punishment [^ UJ i-p.""a is a major punishment as provided in Rule 1o(v) to emplovee has to be replaced to the lending department ii*r. it i" ."1; ,ri"-i""ai"e department which can lake action The "r-t'tfr" $i f i.,ri"tion in this part or ine iule for replacement of the employee to 'l clearlv indicatcs the intention, of the rule i;:;;;; RrlL 20 was aipticable to a employee- who is already -rti.. f, "."" .".rii*i"a io th" pa-.e.,t (lending) department then tJ-.e provision for ih"'"^pr,v." to d-,,e lending department as-contained ;"ffi;;;i i;"b"; ;;;-o;";isos t; R;le 20(2)(ixiii) would not provide. ror replace the service of the government employee to the lending department' ifri. - o". consideied view would be the interpretation- which can be powers that mav be exercised bv the borrowing ;i;;; dcpartment under Rule 20 ' *," i" p-'i* 'I"p"ttt"", "-pr?v""' "-prov"" -,;-d; - , (Emphasis suPPlied) 20 6, PK, J W.P.No.29O66 oJ 2O24

13. Thus, il is evident that once the services of the petitioner as Director, NIT, A.p., were terminated by the Visitor on 06.12.2022, and he has returned to his substantive post as professor at NIT, Warangal, on 14.12.2022, the temporary contract of service between the petitioner and NIT, A.p., ceases to exist. As a result, NIT, Warangal, being the parent Institution' has the excrusive authority and jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner.

74. Coming to the second point for consideration, i.e., the competence of respondent No.2, in his capacity of the Director and in_charge of the Board of Governors of NIT Warangal, for initiating disciplinar5z proceedings against the petitioner for the alleged acts of misconduct committed during his tenure as Director of NIT, A.p., on deputation, it is relevant to refer to Section 24 of the National Institutes of Technologr (Science, Educirtion and Research) Act, 2007, which deals with the appointment of employees in the NITs. The relevant portion of the said Section is extrar:ted hereunder: "All appointments of the staff 6f 6yery Insfitute. excepl thar of lhe made in accordan"" ,ith th" p.o..Jr.['ria ao*., in .D'J.J[;;,".111"1. ,t. Board, if the appointment is made on the acadenric staff ,._ .(fl ln l.he posr of Lecturer or above or if_the appoinir,r-.irfi'-.a" on the non academic sta]T in any cadre rh. _#*;;;i for which ex.eecls rupees ten thousa;rd [Jh;;il, ttJp,,, "'" - ""u1. d 27 PK' J W.P.No.29066 of 2024 (b) the Director, in any other case'"

15. Admittedly, in the instant case' the petitioner herein' after termination of his deputation as Director of NIT' A'P'' has been repatriated to NIT, Warangal' and is working in the cadre of Professor' Under the centrar civil services (classirrcation, control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, the appointing authority is often the disciplinary authority' warranting imposition of major penalties' As especiallY in the cases of Governors is the appointing authority of the ndent No.2 is the competent authority to initiate petitioner herein, resPo any discipiinary action against the petitioner' 16. It is relevant to refer to Statute 17(15) of the First Statute of NITs' which is extracted hereunder: such, since the Board "(I5llntheeventoftheoccurrenc€ofanyvacancyinthe'ofliceofthe i hr.irp","o., bv rea son "' "': S:li l. -'::Pl;*J;*[ X"";:ltil: evcnl of the Chalrperson "l"i*"r"'i1"n."..ur"", tn" Director Eay owrns to absence' illness or u:y "1":'-'li]-'.i"it".t"on discbarge tle functions assigaed to the Chairperso: sectiotr 16 of the Act' (EmPhasis suPP lied) It is thus clear from the above statute that in the event of non- 17 . availability of the Chairperson' the Director may act as the in-charge Chairperson of the Board of Governors to perform the duties of the Chairperson as per section 16 of the NIT-SER Act' 2OO7 ' Admittedly' at \ilF - f 22 w.P.N".2eo66,f;L|4 the time of initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, the position of Chairperson of the Board of Governors was vacant. As such, the Director of NIT, warangal, is statutor y vested with the authority to act as in-charge Chairperson of the Bozrrd of Govemors. Thus' the contention of the petitioner that respondent No.2 acted as in_ charge Chairperson of the Board of Governors without prior approval from the Visitor is untenable, mainly in the light of automatic vesting of powers under the Statute. Therefore, this Court finds no merit in the present writ petition. Hence, the judgments relied on by the petitioner are of no avail to him.

18. Furthermore, the present writ petition has been frled challenging the impugned Articles of Charge issued by respondent No.2. Here it is pertinent to note that in a catena ofjudgments, this court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court held a writ petition should not be entertained agatn st a mere show_cause notice or charge-sheet as the writ petition may be held to be premature at this stage. The Honble Apex Court, in Kunlsettg so,tg,,ttd,ayana (supra), categoricaly held as follows: "il;il,ii"-il T:Ti,lr a.s3ri:s or decisions or this court that aouce-"*;;;;n",T*"r;,,1,.:;""*;.,:#".:;.,."i;:r;":H; ?:ii".\rr:[,";i,:"i:ar linshittss6) r stJczz l;t lreesr e si iool s5i 'i,i";;:"' Mohd' Ghutam Ghouse tr,oo4t s sccr +co , fi #i lg;;., ?,.,s8, if ?i:*t iililr,Ti't. *W 7 C) 23 PK, J W.P.No.29066 of 2O24

14. Thc reason why ordinarily a writ pctition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petitio! may be held to be preEature. A mete charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to aly cause of actioD, because it does not amount to atr adverse order which affects the rights of atry party unless the sarrre has beea issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. [t is quitc possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or aftcr holding aJ1 enquiry the authority concerned may drop the prclceedings and/or hold that the chargcs are not established. It is well settled that a writ petition lies when soEe right of aly party is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of anyoDe. It is only wheu a final order imposing some punishEetrt or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party caa be said to have any griewaace.

15. Writ jurisdiction is discretiorlary jurisdiction and hent:e such discretion uader Article 226 should trot ordinadly be exercised by quashing a show-cause trotice or ctrarge-sheet.

16. No doubt, in sorne very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a charge-sheet or show-cause notice if it is found to be wholly without jurlsdictio! or for some other reasoa if it is whotly illegal. Howcver, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter." (trmpl-rasis supplied)

19. Similarly, in Ministry of Defence u. Prq.bha.sh Chand.ra Mird.halo, the Hon'l-rle Apex Court held as follows: 1O. Ordinarily a writ application does not lie against a charge-shect or show-cause notice for the reason that it does not give rise to any cause of action. It does not amount to an adverse order which affects the right of any party unless t-he same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction/competence to do so. A writ lies when some right of a party is infringed. In fact, charge-sheet does not infringe the right of a party. It is only when a final order imposing the punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, it may have a grievance and cause of action. Thus, a charge-sheet or show-cause notice in disciplinary proceedings should not ordinarily be quashed by the court. (Vide Srare of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma l(1987) 2 SCC 179 ro(2o12) 11 SCC 565 24 PK' J W.P.No.29066 of 2024 o : (1987) 3 ATC 319 : AIR 1987 SC 9431 , Bihar Stole Housing Board v. Ranresh Kumar Singh [(1996) 1 SOC 3271 , Ulagappav. Commr.ll2oOll 10 SCC 639 : AIR 2000 SO 3603 {2)l , Speciel Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse ll2OO4) 3 SCC '14O : 2004 SCC (Cri) 82f> : AIR 2OO4 SC la67l and Union of lidio \'. Kunisettg Sotvana.auena IpOO6) 12 SCC 28 : (2OO7l 2 SCC (L&S) 304I .) ll. In,Srale of Orissa v. Sangram Keshari Misra I(2010) 13 SCC 311 : (2O 1 I ) 1 SCC (L&S) 3801 (SCC pp. 3 I 5- 16, para 10) tl.is (lourt held that normally a charge-sheet is not quashed Prior to the conducting of the enquiry on the ground that the facts steted in the charge are erroDeous for the reason that to deterEine correctDess or truth of the charge is tbe function of the discipliuary authorlty. (See also Union of lndia\. Upendro sinah [(reqa) :] SCC 357 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 768 (1994)27 A'lC 2001).1 12.'lhrls. the law on the issue can be summarised.to the effect that the charge slreet cannot generally be a subject-matter of clrallenge as it does r,ot irdversely affect the rights of the delinquent ttnless it is establishcd lhat the same has been issued by an authority not compet(:rt lo initiate the disciplinary proceedings. Neither the disciplinary proccedings nor the charge-sheet be quashed at atr initial stage as it would be a prematut€ stage to deal wlth the issues. Proceedilgs are sot liable to be quashed ou the grounds that proceedings had been iiltiated at a belated stage or could not be concluded in a reaso[able period uutess the delay creates prejudlce to the delinquent employee. Gravity of alleged miscorduct is a relevant factor to be taken iato consideration while quashing tbe proceedhgs." (Emphasis supplie d)

20. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition is at a premature stage, and therefore, is not maintainable. Thus, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

21. However, in view of the fact that the present disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner are based on the similar set of allegations as were leveled in the criminal cases registered him, having regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Capt. I 25 PK, J w.P.No.29066 of 2O24 M. Paul Anthong u. Blarqt Gold ltlinesl t, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondents not to proceed further with the disciplinary proceedings in pursuance of the impugned Articles of Charge vide Memo.No.NITW/ BoG/Disc. / ID -47 I/2023/3387 dated

28.11.2023 issued by respondent No.2, till the conclusion of criminal proceedings in FIR Nos.RCO362O22AOO|2 and RCO362O22AOO11, both dated 16.02.2022, perrding on the file of the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Vishakapatnam.

22. Subject to the above observations/ direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

23. After the above order has been pronounced in the open Court, learned Additional Solicitor General of lndia, appearing for the respondents, submits that during the pendency of the present writ pctition, a departmental enquiry against the petitioncr was duly conducted and concluded by the competent authority.

24. Having regard to the above made submission, this Court does not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. " (1999) 3 SCC 679 ! 26 PK, J V/.P.No.29066 of 2024

25. Accordingly, rhe Writ Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No costs ,TRUE COPY// SD/ .G. VYJAYANTHI S ANT REGISTRAR CTION OFFICER To,

1. OneCCto SRI tt4 P KASHYAP,Advocate[OPUC] 2. One CC to SRI B NARASIMHA RAO, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GEN. OF 3. One CC to SRI T MAHENDER RAO,Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies rNDrA [OPUC] -..---' BIV'"qy --\ ( .? ,J (-) \\,t l vtE S14 .e $.c 17 JUi'l 2ffi L) -l, t c \=_ HIGH COURT DATED:1710412025 ORDER WP.No.29066 of 2024 DISMISSING'THE WRIT PETITION WITHOIJT COSTS @ Wfttv(